Principle 3 (Integrity in Relationships) 3.

4 Conflicts of interest:

Principle 3 (Integrity in Relationships)

The relationships formed by psychologists in the course of their work embody explicit and
mutual expectations of integrity that are vital to the advancement of social justice, scientific
knowledge, and to the maintenance of public confidence in the discipline of psychology.
Expectations of professional practice include: respect, accuracy and honesty; openness,
maintenance of appropriate boundaries, and avoidance of conflicts of interest. Psychologists
will seek to do right in their relations with others. In New Zealand, the Treaty of Waitangi
provides a framework for integrity in relationships between the two peoples, tangata whenua
(those who are Māori) and those who are not Māori.

3.4 Conflicts of interest:

Value Statement:
Psychologists recognise that conflicts of interest are a threat to the integrity of relationships.

Practice Implications:
3.4.1. Psychologists seek to avoid dual relationships where that might present a conflict
of interest.

3.4.2. Where dual relationships are unavoidable, psychologists identify any real or
potential conflicts of interest and take all reasonable steps to address the issue in the best
interests of the parties.

3.4.3. Psychologists do not exploit any work relationship to further their own personal or
business interests.

Comment: Work relationships included are those with clients, research participants,
students, employers, and employees under their direct supervision.

—------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Principle 3 (Integrity in Relationships) 3.4 Conflicts of interest:

I am examining the psychological experiment shown in the film “The Stanford Prison
Experiment”, directed by Kyle Patrick Alvarez. The film is based on the Stanford Prison
experiment, which ran from the 14th of August 1971 to the 21st of Aug 1971. I will be
critiquing the experiment compliance and noncompliance of the Code of Ethics For
Psychologists Working in Aotearoa/New Zealand. Specifically examining the experiment
under principle 3 “Integrity in Relationships”.

Firstly, the “Stanford Prison Experiment” did not comply with sub-principle 3.4, Specifically
with sub-sub-principle, 3.4.1. Midway through the “Stanford Prison Experiment” one of the
researchers had to leave the experiment. The replacement researcher was the lead
researcher's wife and former student, Christina Zimbardo. They clearly did not comply with
this point because; with the introduction of Christina into the experiment, they encountered a
dual relationship in the experiment. This clearly conflicted with sub-sub-principle, 3.4.1. It
worsens when you consider that Christina knew that her husband was involved in the
experiment. She did not seek to avoid dual relationships going against all aspects of
sub-sub-principle, 3.4.1. The experiment also doesn't comply with 3.4.3. Jesse Fletcher, was
the ethics counsellor for the experiment as well as an ex convict. Throughout the experiment
Jesse Fletcher, instead keeping a neutral stance on the experiment. Instead of strictly following
the parameters set out by the experiment, he started to inflict the experiences and trauma he had
lived through in prison onto the prisoner in the experiment. Feathering his own personal interest
in making the prison more “realistic”. Although the experiment shown in the film did not comply
with principle 3.4.1 and 3.4.3. Thay somewhat comply with principle 3.4.2. When Christina
left the experiment to ensure her personal well being stayed intact, and she's not a part of
the negative impact on the well-being of the research participants. The Stanford Prison
Experiment could have done more in depth background checks on the researchers involved
in the experiment, in order to comply better with 3.4.
Principle 3 (Integrity in Relationships) 3.4 Conflicts of interest: